Switch to ADA Accessible Theme
Close Menu
Criminal Law Podcast – Tales from the Brown Desk – Episode 7 – Probation & Parole in Indiana Contact Us
Indianapolis Criminal & OWI Lawyers > Blog > Ankle Bracelets > Criminal Law Podcast – Tales from the Brown Desk – Episode 7 – Probation & Parole in Indiana

Criminal Law Podcast – Tales from the Brown Desk – Episode 7 – Probation & Parole in Indiana

Weekly Criminal Law Podcast, Tales from the Brown Desk, brought to you by Rigney Law LLC. Tales from the Brown Desk is a free flowing conversation involving two foul-mouthed attorneys. It may include graphic descriptions of sexual activity, violence, and traffic law. It may not be suitable for children. Listener discretion advised.

Episode 7 – Discussion about probation and parole in Indiana, how Covid-19 pandemic is affecting jails and prisons, 92% of Westville Correctional Facility inmates testing positive for Covid-19, Indianapolis has the nation’s largest electronic monitoring program (ankle bracelets), Technology behind ankle monitors, Florida Man arrested for stealing drills and batteries to pay for his ankle monitoring fees, and Florida Man claims gun found in his car was not his, but John Wicks.

Listen on:

Apple Podcast Google Podcasts iHeart Radio Spotify Castro CastboxsticherRSS Feed

Podcast Transcript

Jake Rigney – It’s Friday afternoon. We’ve locked the door so no one will interrupt us while we attempt to inject disinfectant and UV radiation directly into our lungs, and also because it’s time for another edition of our weekly podcast Tales From the Brown Desk. I’m Jake Rigney of Rigney Law LLC. With me, as usual, is my law partner, wife and the mother of our home school demon child, Kassi Rigney. Our host is Teri Ulm. Friendly reminder, Tales from the Brown Desk is a free flowing conversation involving two foul-mouthed attorneys. It may include graphic descriptions of sexual activity, violence, and attempted goose homicide. It may not be suitable for children, my mother, your mother, mother superior, mother of dragons and mother truckers, or the drive by truckers. Listener discretion is advised. Here’s Teri.

Teri Ulm – Hello, everyone. Hi, Jake.

Jake Rigney – Hi Teri. How you doing?

Teri Ulm – I’m good. How are you?

Jake Rigney – I am full of cheeseburger.

Teri Ulm – Nice.

Jake Rigney – Yeah, it was good.

Teri Ulm – How are you, Kassi?

Kassi Rigney – I’m fine, thank you.

Teri Ulm – So today’s episode is gonna be focused on parole and probation. Now, probation and parole caseloads have increased as prisons and jails look to reduce overcrowding during the coronavirus. Numerous entities, like the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild, have reached out to Governor Holcomb pleading for the release of low level offenders, inmates who are close to the end of their sentences, and those who are at high risk of becoming seriously ill or dying of Covid-19. Holcomb has allowed the Indiana Department of Corrections to manage itself. What do you guys think about this?

Kassi Rigney – About the self management? About the request to the governor? Which?

Teri Ulm – About the self management… about the, it being pushed to the local levels for the local levels to decide.

Kassi Rigney – I think that being more individualized is better rather than a big structure that paints every case with a broad stroke. You want your case to be evaluated individually, and you know, with local levels probably the best way to do that, back in your home jurisdiction.

Teri Ulm – County jails are releasing dozens, sometimes hundreds, of inmates to reduce the threat of Covid-19. But this has not prevented Covid-19 from spreading in some facilities, like the facility up in northwest Indiana, the Westville facility. Where nearly 92% of the inmates have tested positive for Covid-19. Numerous of the staff members there have too. In fact, the Indiana National Guard was just deployed to the facility to help staff deal with this issue. So do you think Indiana’s local facilities are dealing with this pandemic well?,

Jake Rigney – Well, look, I don’t know about well. It’s going to be nearly impossible to deal with no matter what you do. You can’t stop sending employees to the jail, right? Or to the prison to watch the inmates. You can’t suddenly make inmates stay six feet apart from each other when there’s not enough space in there to do that with in any sort of reasonable way. And someone, an asymptomatic person, is eventually gonna end up there, whether it’s a guard or cafeteria worker or an inmate who just got sent there from a county jail where he got it. So, it is literally impossible to keep out, and it is almost impossible to keep it from spreading once it gets there. Now, it would be a different story if our testing situation was a little different. If we had the ability to test people within, you know, and get results within minutes or a couple of hours. You could test everyone coming in and out every day. That would also be obviously very expensive. And, you know, the state’s not going to try to spend that kind of money just on keeping a disease out of the prison that’s not going to kill too many people. The prison is a really difficult place to live, and it’s not going to get any easier with Covid-19. But there’s a pretty strong undercurrent, I’d say more among conservative voters than among liberals, that says so what? You shouldn’t have gone to prison. I think that they feel that way. They probably feel that way about this to. It’s unfortunate, but I think that those types of voters have sway with the politicians who make these decisions. And so, you’re probably not going to see things improve too much. It is good that they’ve been letting more people out of the county jails. Although it’s frustrating that they have a bunch of people in the county jails that they can just say, “Oh, well now that you’ve got a respiratory disease that’s very infectious, never mind. We don’t need to keep you in jail”. Like the truth is, they didn’t need to keep that guy in jail anyway.

Teri Ulm – Right.

Jake Rigney – So that’s, I mean that’s a little frustrating, but I guess, um, you know, you take the release for whatever reason, you get it. I guess.

Teri Ulm – So, with probation and parole caseloads on the rise due to trying to reduce the crowded prison and jail populations, let’s talk about probation and parole for a minute. Can you define probation and parole and tell the listeners what the difference is?

Kassi Rigney – Probation is part of your sentence and parole is in addition to it afterwards. Like when you go into your sentencing hearing, you will know how much probation you’re going to get. You’re not going to be told how much parole you’re going to get. Parole doesn’t count towards your serving of your sentence like probation does.

Teri Ulm – So what are some common probation rules that are put upon a person?

Kassi Rigney – Standard terms and conditions are often you’re gonna have to, you know, don’t commit any new crimes, show up to your appointments. The usually include random drug testing. Sometimes they have curfews. Sometimes they have limits on, you know, alcohol use.

Teri Ulm – Community service?

Kassi Rigney – That’s case by case, I mean, sometimes that… I wouldn’t consider that a standard term. I mean, it’s not unusual, but it’s not like default, you get community service. Where I feel like default is your probation includes urine, random drug testing. It certainly can be part of it.

Teri Ulm – Who is eligible for a probation or what type of offenders would get probation?

Jake Rigney – Anyone can get probation as part of a criminal sentence. Even a C misdemeanor. Any misdemeanor, you can get up to a year of probation. And it can be attached to a suspended sentence on any type of felony. There are some felonies that carry a mandatory minimum sentences. And in that case, if you only got the mandatory minimum, you wouldn’t get probation afterward. Although you probably would get parole. But oftentimes, if there’s any type of suspended sentence, you’ll get probation as part of that suspended sentence. So, really, on any case, you can end up with probation. Sometimes you get it after you serve prison time or home detention time or something like that. So, you know, even with a murder case, you could get 50 years in prison followed by five years suspended on probation or something like that. That that happens sometimes.

Teri Ulm – Is there a general length someone is on probation? Or is that dependent upon the crime the person committed?

Kassi Rigney – There’s no set term of probation. You know, if it’s a misdemeanor, it’s gonna be a shorter term than a felony. The potential length of the sentence of the underlying crime can kind of to be controlling for that, but there’s no set term. It’s not: if you’re convicted of this, you get this much probation. That’s not.

Jake Rigney – Yeah. Really the only limitation on it is that you can’t get a longer probation sentence than you have a total sentence, then the available total sentence. So, for example, except for on misdemeanors. So, for example, with a level six felony, if you got the maximum sentence on a level six felonies two and a half years. So they cannot give you more than two and a half years of probation. Typically, they don’t. Typically they give you less, in Indianapolis for that. But, if they wanted to give you the maximum amount on probation, it would be two and a half years.

Teri Ulm – So what happens to someone when they’re on probation and they violate some of the rules.

Jake Rigney – You hear that? The sirens, they’re playing our son, Kassi.

Kassi Rigney – Anything can happen to an informal resolution between the person and the probation department that never goes the court. They could file a violation in court, and you would have to go to court. Then, in that situation, it’s still anything to you could be continued on probation as before. They can increase monitoring requirements or they can violate you and send you and take you into custody.

Teri Ulm – So what would be the worst case scenario for somebody who violated their probation?

Kassi Rigney – They go to jail for all of their backup time.

Teri Ulm – No good time credit?

Kassi Rigney – Well, if you violated, what do you get good time credit for? I mean, you don’t just get it, for getting it.

Jake Rigney – To put it in context, you have to understand how criminal sentences work. When you receive a sentencing in a criminal case, it’s divided into two portions. One portion is the executed portion, which is the portion you serve immediately. And the other part is a suspended sentence that you can be made to serve later if you violate your probation. So, if you’re placed on probation and you have a one year suspended, suspended time is is what sort of we colloquially call backup time. So if you have one year back up time, and you violate your probation, the judge can give you anything between a stern talking to and one year in jail or prison, depending on what kind of offense you committed. You do earn good time credit against that executed sentence if it gets imposed. So if the judge converts your suspended sentence into an executed sentence, you do get good time credit while you’re serving it, at the same rate that you would if you were serving it originally. So, misdemeanor or a level six felony, you get a day for every day of credit. If it’s a major felony, a level five felony or higher, you get a day for every three days that you serve. So you serve 75% of it, roughly, on a major felony case. You do still have the opportunity to get time cuts, but that’s generally how the credit time works in that scenario.

Kassi Rigney – Yeah, when you’re serving, you’re not earning good time credit on your probation sentence. So you could go to the end of your probation and violate, and you can’t be like: “Well, I have good time credit on probation. You don’t have… There’s not any time for you to send me back”, and that’s not true. So I guess I was unclear. But you’re not earning good time credit for serving time on probation.

Jake Rigney – Right. You’re not earning any credit when you’re on probation. Probation is not an executed sentence. You don’t get credit time for it. If you get one year of probation, you have to do one year of probation. Your benefit for being good on probation, is not that they cut your time, it’s that you don’t have to do any of that suspended time that they threaten you with.

Teri Ulm – Can probation officers arrest somebody? Or is that just reserved for cops to do?

Jake Rigney – I believe that they can buy statue. I do not believe that practice is common. Typically, when a probation officer is involved in some sort of apprehension, it’s likely that there’s a police officer there with handcuffs that’s actually doing the work. But I think they are defined as law enforcement officers in the statute. Which means they probably could if they really… if they felt like they could follow the statute. But, most likely, most probation officers have a very clear understanding that that’s not an appropriate way for them to act, and that usually they’re going to want to leave that to the professionals. Because arresting somebody is dangerous. It’s not something to be taken, you know, likely, and just cause you felt like it.

Teri Ulm – Could a probation violation result in a warrant for an arrest?

Kassi Rigney – Yes. Generally, that’s if they take… If the violation has brought to the court… an alleged notice of violation is filed. And then the state or the probation part will either request a warrant for their arrest or what’s called a summons. And then the court can either just issue a summons, which is a subpoena to appear for court, order to appear, or the issue a warrant for your arrest.

Teri Ulm – What type of advice would you give to somebody who has a probation violation and a warrant for their arrest? Like, what should they do? Should they turn themselves in? Should they call an attorney?

Jake Rigney – It is generally, I think, a good idea to consult with an attorney. But, sometimes the court will simply leave you no option other than to turn yourself in. So if you’re gonna, you know, check with an attorney. There are certain types of cases, in certain places, where an attorney might be able to get it set up so that you don’t have to go turn yourself in. But sometimes that can’t happen. And you either have to turn yourself in or you wait till somebody with a badge and a gun find you. And sometimes that doesn’t take very long. Sometimes it takes a really long time. And you can put yourself in a worse situation when you do that, though. Because a lot of times, if you go in front of the judge, and you have just turned yourself in because you knew there was a warrant, the judge looks at you and thinks, well, that’s a person that isn’t gonna run. And, you know, then maybe they think you might be worth another chance. But if you’re gone for a year and 1/2 or two years, and you knew there was a warrant out for your arrest, and you didn’t come back, well, then the judge is gonna be thinking that’s a person who’s probably run away again. We’re gonna have to be dealing with this three years from now again. I’d rather have this out of my courtroom. And so sometimes there are less likely to give you another chance in that situation.

Teri Ulm – Now, what happens to someone who moved out of the state of Indiana and there’s a warrant for their arrest here for violating their probation, and they’re pulled over in some other state? Are they brought back here to Indiana or is that dependent upon their… the crime they committed?

Kassi Rigney – Any time a warrant is issued, it should show up in the national database, and any law enforcement officer then encounters you and knows about that warrant, is supposed to take him into custody. Doesn’t matter what it’s for. Now the question is, is Indiana going to bring you back? You know, and that depends. Is it a Marion County warrant? Are they gonna bring you back a couple counties away. Yeah. Are they gonna bring you back couple states away? Maybe. It depends on what it is. There’s not a bright line rule. It’s kind of case by case. And, you know, then the jurisdiction has something to say about that. Because the court’s issuing a warrant. But, I mean, you know, it’s the sheriffs department that has to drive out there and get you. So there’s a lot of factors that go into play. But you could potentially, yes. It depends.

Teri Ulm – So now we’re gonna move on to parole. And could you explain to the listeners how parole works here in Indiana?

Kassi Rigney – If you go to the Department of Corrections, you will either serve a term of probation or a term of parole after that sentence.

Teri Ulm – So if someone is in prison, parole is a given when… before they get out?

Kassi Rigney – They will either get probation or parole. Parole is set up to make sure that the person getting out of custody has some kind of safety net to reintegrate into the community. Now they forgo the parole doing that, if you have probation. But you have to do… You have to get something. I’ve seen once in a while where they’ll try and run, cause defenses want parole anyway, and the either drop one or run them simultaneously. But that’s a rare circumstance.

Teri Ulm – So in Indiana, do inmates appear before, like a parole board or people that are going to ask them questions about life after prison?

Kassi Rigney – They do. Now you only end up there, ultimately if you violated most of the time. Because you go to prison, and the math problem, it’s your executed sentence, minus credit time that will give you your release date. And that’s called mandatory parole. And you’ll get that, and you’ll get kicked out on parole without seeing the board once you reach that math problem. Then you see the board if you violate, and you don’t admit the violation. But then, even if you admit the violation, you get annual reviews for anybody who’s violated, and then you will appear in front of the board every year for that review hearing.

Teri Ulm – What kind of authority does the parole board have? Meaning, like what type of conditions can they put on a person?

Kassi Rigney – They have a wide discretion. Their limits on their power is that which is reasonably related to successful integration and not unduly restrictive of fundamental rights. So anything that is deemed reasonably related to this rehabilitation, and doesn’t unduly burn and rights, they’ll be allowed to do. And that’s very broad. And I keep seeing unduly burden. The statute is already saying, “they’re going to burden your constitutional rights,” and they are allowed to do so. They just can’t do it unduly, and then what is unduly? So they’ve got a lot of discretion. I mean, it comes back down to this mentality: “Well, default. You’re supposed to be in prison. You don’t like the rules of being out. Okay, you can go back to prison.” The case law calls it the extension of prison walls. So I mean, you know, you get a lot of people calling. I’m free. I did my time. If you’re still on parole, you are still serving, you know, considered under their thumb, under their authority, you know.

Jake Rigney – And one of the things that always strikes me about that statute and that that whole situations, is we write this statue, right? And it’s got a bunch of legal terms in it that no one coming out of prison understands. And we put them back in prison if they don’t abide by it, you know what I mean? So routinely we see people who come out, and don’t understand what that means, and don’t understand what they’re allowed to do and what they aren’t allowed to do. And then they’re really unhappy when they find out that it is quite a bit difficult to actually successfully complete parole sometimes. And they put a lot of difficult, strange conditions on you sometimes. Especially if you’re a sex offender. So it creates this weird situation and it’s a real problem. We write laws. We expect people to understand them. But we write them in a way that most people won’t ever understand.

Teri Ulm – So, Kassi, you appear before the parole board often representing inmates and people in prison. Can you give the listeners an example of a condition that might be un-burdensome to somebody, or burdensome?

Kassi Rigney – This has not been considered unduly burdensome. But the most shocking condition that I had heard of was for sex offenders who have to undergo polygraph testing. And, the reason why. I mean, they’re not just asking have you had contact with underage Children? Have you had contact with the victim? They go into the content of masturbatory fantasies. Um, under… Yeah, so you want talk about mind police. You know, What were you fantasizing when you were jerking off? That seems really intrusive.

Teri Ulm – Wow. Are ankle bracelets or ankle monitoring systems, part of parole and probation?

Jake Rigney – They can be part of, I think, either one. They’re not terribly common as a condition of probation, mainly because it’s also in executed sentence. And so if you’re gonna put somebody on home detention as a condition of their probation, you might as well just put them on home detention. You know, there’s no reason to have probation involved with it at that point. But it does happen sometimes. Which is weird, because it’s good enough to be an executed sentence. Although technically you’re not serving and executed sentence. Which is why the Court of Appeals has said, if you do that to somebody, if the state does that to someone while they’re on probation and it’s a condition of their probation. If they ever have… if they’re ever found to have violated their probation, they get credit for all that time they were on home detention. So you can earn credit time for it, even if you’re not serving an executed sentence. Which again is sort of peculiar way to handle it. But, that type of monitoring can occasionally be part of a probation term. Yeah.

Teri Ulm – So there is a statistic that I found interesting. Specifically because it’s about Indianapolis. Did you know that Indianapolis has the nation’s largest electronic monitoring program? And just to give you an example of how large it is, there are approximately a little over 4000 people, in Indianapolis, monitor daily on these systems. And if you compare that to Cook County in Illinois, where Chicago sits, there are 2,700 on average people being monitored daily. Why do you think there so many more people on ankle bracelets or ankle monitors in Indianapolis? Why are we using that more than the most of the nation?

Kassi Rigney – I’d expect Marion County relies on it because of the federal inmate cap that has been in place since the mid aughts. We have not expanded the jail since the cap was in… put in place. So, they aren’t stopping to arrest people or sentence people, but they don’t have any other way… They don’t have enough room to house them. And they were sued federally at one point for overcrowding.

Jake Rigney – Yeah. And I think it’s an attractive option for judges, because they know they can’t hold everyone. But at least that way, if something bad happens down the road, the judge can say they tried, right? They used an option that was available to them. Which is better than just saying, we released him, right? They could say, well we put him on home detention. He wasn’t supposed to be out of his house. It assists a little bit and sort of what I call the politics of confusion. There are opportunities… Well, I guess the easiest way to explain it is sometimes something really bad happens, right? Like a guy is out on home detention and he commits a murder or does some other really bad thing on. And it’s happened many times in Indianapolis. I’ve been involved in a few of those cases myself. And inevitably the media starts asking questions. Usually related to like, why was this person out of custody? You know what I mean? Why didn’t we prevent this from happening? And then, they start asking, you know, everyone that’s been involved in the decision starts point the finger at each other about it, right? The Prosecutor can say: well, the judge let her out. We didn’t let them out. We didn’t agree to that. Which is why the prosecutor’s office are usually objects to every bond request. So that they can come back later and say, well, we didn’t agree to it. Because they know if if 1,000 people are 10,000 people ask for bond reviews, one of them, at least one of them is going to go do something bad afterward. So they just object to all of them, then they can, whichever one it is, they come back and say, well, we objected. We didn’t want him out. And then the judges can either point back at the prosecutor’s office, so or at the jail or wherever else they can to complain about how we don’t have enough beds. Or they or somebody else created a procedure and they were just following it. And so at the end of the day, you never get a really good answer. No matter how many times the media asks about why this happened. And it’s because, you know, there’s three or four or five different people and they can all kind of point at each other and say, not me, them. If the judge puts him on home detention, then the judge can say I put him on home detention, and community corrections didn’t tell me when he ran away. You know what I mean? Why didn’t they tell me? I would have issued a warrant for… So it creates this situation where everyone can just point at somebody else within the system. No one eventually sort of catches the worst of it. And the public just kind of eventually, you know, the news cycle moves on, and the public finds something else to be mildly outraged about. It’s an aspect of the criminal justice system that a lot of people don’t talk about. And a lot of people might even disagree with me about it. But I have noticed it for a long time. Back when I was a prosecutor, back on the aughts and invented my own little term for it. It’s sort of the politics of confusion. You can always find somebody else to blame, or at least to divert attention away from yourself for. And that’s a tool in that process. Even if no one will admit it is, or if they don’t want to say that, that’s why they do it. But I think sometimes that is why. Look, I could be wrong. I’m just stating my opinion. But, I think it’s a real thing. And have been involved in enough decisions about whether or not to object, from back when I was a prosecutor, that I could say it’s a real thing that prosecutors think about.

Teri Ulm – Now, do you know if ankle monitors are only used after sentencing, after you get out of jail, or are they ever used prior to sentencing? Like, are they put on people that have not have their case heard yet?

Kassi Rigney – Oh, yeah. Yeah. I mean, that’s why you put it on. You can have those kind of monitoring as part of your bond. And, I would expect a substantial portion of that 4,000, is those people.

Teri Ulm – I find that interesting because I thought that’s the whole purpose of bond was to ensure that that person was going to come back. So they are taken like an extra precaution?

Jake Rigney – Right. So and what they usually do is… Or the way they would justify it, is by saying that they’ve lowered the bond, right. So, they’ve made it easier for you to get out in return for you being on home detention. So you could have a $10,000 cash bond with no home detention or a $500 cash bond with home detention. Your choice. And most people don’t have $10,000. Most people do have $500. You can guess which one they choose,

Teri Ulm – Right.

Kassi Rigney – Well, and it’s not only to ensure… Bond is not only to ensure appearance, that is definitely one of the things, but it’s also to protect the community. If you have somebody who is a habitual drunk driver, they might be put on a scam bracelet during the pendency of their case to make sure they’re not drinking. And the justification there being is to protect the community.

Teri Ulm – One of the things I ran across, when preparing for this podcast, was the technology that’s behind these ankle bracelets. Like I read somewhere that some of them can actually hear you. Like they’re listening. Do you know if that’s the case here in Indianapolis? If they’re monitoring some people or if they can call you on them?

Jake Rigney – I think that’s accurate. And I think that they can. Having never been on home detention, I’m not up on the latest model. But I do believe I’ve had conversations with people in the past where they said they talked to their officer through their bracelet. Which means they have a microphone and a speaker. And if that’s the case, then they could be recording you. I do think it’s on like one of the sheets you you sign when you sign up for the program too, I think. But you know, those Individual monitors don’t last very long, and so they’re always replacing them with different models. I don’t know what they’re currently doing, if they’re currently doing that, or if they have the ability to, but I think they have in the past.

Teri Ulm – And I read somewhere that some of these monitors can actually determine if you had any alcohol. Is that true? Like they can measure the sweat from your body and be able to tell?

Kassi Rigney – I believe that’s the Scram bracelet. And yes, yes. It’s exactly as you describe.

Teri Ulm – So I’m assuming that the cost for some of these ankle bracelets is probably relatively high. Whose burden is it to pay that cost? Is that the offenders? Is that the taxpayer?

Jake Rigney – No, it’s the offenders. Although I do think that the program is probably subsidized by the taxpayers. In Indiana, they are typically run the home detention and work release programs, are typically run by community corrections. It is a county office that’s created in every county in Indiana. So every county has one. And they… their job is the monitor people. So it is a taxpayer created and funded program. But, they take great pride in using or making the offenders pay for the system. That’s one of the ways they promote it, right? That’s one of the ways they talk everyone into thinking it’s a good idea. Like we’ll put him on home detention, and then he has to pay for it instead of the taxpayers. And there are substantial fees attached to it that people are forced to pay sometimes. And it could be really difficult to pay for. I think the the fees, if they don’t knock him down for you, the fees or something like $12 or $13 or $14 a day. Which is like over $400 a month.

Teri Ulm – Wow.

Jake Rigney- Yeah. I used to have a sports car. A Mazda RX8, and the payment wasn’t that high, per month. So it’s a whole sports car you’re buying every month on your ankle.

Teri Ulm – So then that would make sense why, earlier this year, Florida Man was arrested for stealing drills and batteries and other things to pay for his ankle monitoring fee.

Jake Rigney – Oh, Florida man…

Kassi Rigney – And I can hear his consult with an attorney now about how it is not his fault and that it’s the state’s fault because they racked them with this bill. I heard this defense before.

Jake Rigney – They set me up to fail, man. Yeah. Yeah, they did. They sure did, Chad.

Teri Ulm – Yeah, it’s $400 a month. That’s definitely… Like I don’t know how people can afford that. Especially if you’re coming out of jail or out of prison and have to rebuild your life and then just pay to live and that too.

Jake Rigney – Yeah. So they’re supposed to do an indigence review to determine how much you can actually afford to pay, every month. And it is? Ah, but it is. That is sort of… I’m struggling to figure out a polite way to say this… That is not uniform in its application. So some places, I think, find a lot of people indigent, and some places almost won’t find anyone indigent or just won’t put anyone indigent on it. Which creates other serious issues. But about how you treat rich people versus poor people in the system. But our system is never designed to be perfect anyway. So if that’s what you come out of it wanting, you’re always gonna be disappointed.

Teri Ulm – So, did you hear that Florida Man was arrested this week after being… after the cops were called due to a domestic violence call. They were called to a residence. A women told them that Florida Man hid his gun in the car. So the cops proceed to search the car, and they find a gun and a bulletproof vest. And Florida Man says that they were not his. They were John Wicks. His cousin, John Wick.

Jake Rigney – His cousin John Wick. Did the police just sort of put everything back and leave?

Teri Ulm – No.

Jake Rigney – Cuz that’s what I would have done. I would have been like, well done, sir. If there’s a 0.1% chance he’s telling the truth, I’m going to die. So time to leave.

Teri Ulm – No. He was arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and domestic battery.

Jake Rigney – Good try Florida Man. Points for creativity.

Teri Ulm – And that wraps up this episode of Tales from the Brown Desk.

Jake Rigney – Thank you, Teri. We appreciate it. And thank you for listening to Tales from the Brown Desk. Please note, while we may discuss legal issues and provide information regarding the law to our listeners, we do not intend to create an attorney client relationship with any listener. Our advice may not be applicability to some legal issues. Please consult with an attorney you’ve hired to review your legal situation before you attempt to apply the things we have said to your case. If you’d like to schedule a free consultation with one of us regarding a criminal law matter, please call us at 317-316-8419 If you’d like to submit a question for our podcast, please send an email to teri@rigneylawindy.com. Please title your email, “Podcast Question”. No names are necessary. The attorneys at Rigney Law do not comment on their current pending cases. Nothing we have said in this podcast is a comment on a case we’re currently working on, even if your name is Chad or if you’re from Florida. Thanks everyone.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Contact Us
protected by reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms